Abstract

Using the URL or DOI link below will
ensure access to this page indefinitely

Based on your IP address, your paper is being delivered by:

New York, USA

Processing request.

Illinois, USA

Processing request.

Brussels, Belgium

Processing request.

Seoul, Korea

Processing request.

California, USA

Processing request.

If you have any problems downloading this paper,please click on another Download Location above, or view our FAQFile name: SSRN-id1410352. ; Size: 6632K

You will receive a perfect bound, 8.5 x 11 inch, black and white printed copy of this PDF document with a glossy color cover. Currently shipping to U.S. addresses only. Your order will ship within 3 business days. For more details, view our FAQ.

Quantity:Total Price = $9.99 plus shipping (U.S. Only)

If you have any problems with this purchase, please contact us for assistance by email: Support@SSRN.com or by phone: 877-SSRNHelp (877 777 6435) in the United States, or +1 585 442 8170 outside of the United States. We are open Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30AM and 6:00PM, United States Eastern.

There must be an end to litigation. Therein lies the policy underlying the concept of res judicata. We give parties every opportunity to develop the issues and present evidence with the aim of deciding the case upon the merits. Once that opportunity has been afforded, a party should not be allowed to relitigate simply on the showing that there might be a different result the second time around. At one time only the parties to a lawsuit could be affected by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The basis for precluding relitigation of the issue was not simply that the parties already had an opportunity to contest the issues, but also that parties should not be permitted to contradict their record. After extensive examination, however, mutuality of estoppel finally gave way to the belief that it would not necessarily be unfair to bind persons who had a full opportunity to litigate matters in the first suit. However, according to either the mutuality rule or the new doctrine, a nonparty cannot be bound by unfavorable findings. This result allegedly has its roots in due process principles of fairness. This article argues that it would not be inconsistent with due process to bind nonparties by findings of fact in certain circumstances. These circumstances basically give rise to an assurance that parties to the first litigation fully and fairly litigated the issues. This article discusses the doctrine of collateral estoppel, mutuality of estoppel, and exceptions to and the breakdown of mutuality.